In a court case, a man was charged with two counts of grand larceny on an allege breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. Consequently, he was found guilty of the first count and also guilty of petit larceny as a lesser offense of the second count.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man contends that the evidence was insufficient to permit the jury to conclude that he had the necessary intent to commit grand larceny when he broke and entered the dwelling. The evidence established that the man was apprehended shortly after he had left the premises, at which time he had in his possession of the color television set, a camera, and a portable radio, all of which had been stolen from the dwelling. Yet, the state offered no evidence to establish that the property had a value of $100.00 or more at the time of the stealing. Beyond being apprehended with the stolen property, there was no other evidence or circumstances bearing on the question of the man's intent. In such cases it has been said that the best evidence of his intent is his act of stealing.
The court concluded on the basis of previous case and stated that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction of the crime of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. The court further asserts that the decision of guilt should be entered as to the lesser included crime.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said that based on records, the decision of guilty as to count two is misleading since count two of the information charged grand larceny, whereas the jury by its decision found the man guilty of petit larceny. The crime of breaking and entering with intent to commit a specified felony or misdemeanor and the crime of having committed or having attempted to commit same specified felony or misdemeanor, are two separate and distinct substantive offenses.
Consequently, the decision on each count is reversed and the sentence on count one is vacated. The following decision was remanded for entry of judgment and sentence on each count consistent.
In another court case, a man was also charged with the crime of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a felony. He was charged with two count of grand larceny with the allege breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a felony and petit larceny in which it was occurred at the same location as the breaking and entering in previous charge.
The man entered a plea of not guilty and waived trial by jury. After the proceeding, he was found guilty as charged.
Based on records, the state's only evidence in support of the charge that the man intended to commit grand larceny was a testimony that the dwelling contained property valued at more than one hundred dollars. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the man admitted having taken from the house a purse containing fourteen dollars but, he asserted that he never intended to take more than thirty dollars. He also consistently maintained that the sole purpose of the second intrusion was to retrieve the balance of the thirty dollars. The man was arrested while inside the dwelling upon the second occasion.
Consequently, the court found that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the man intent to commit grand larceny at the time he broke into and entered the dwelling. As a result, the court affirmed the convictions of breaking and entering and petit larceny. However, the judgments and sentences will be set aside and the causes remanded with directions to the trial court to enter judgment holding the man guilty of the lesser included offenses and to impose sentences as provided by the law.
There are times that we experience unreasonable accusations from others. If you are caught in this kind of situation whether it involves drug possession, sex crimes or a theft offense, you can ask the help of the NY Criminal Attorney to prove your innocence. You can also ask for legal guidance from the New York City Petit Larceny Lawyer or NYC Grand Larceny Lawyers. Simply call or visit Stephen Bilkis and Associates office for more details.